Trump, Russia, and NATO: Why Tiny Montenegro’s Not Tiny Now

Donald Trump has just approved Montenegro’s
accession into NATO. Montenegro is a tiny nation, and its inclusion doesn’t
significantly change the abilities of NATO, but it’s inclusion is huge, and
its meaning is significant and clear to Russia.

As the curtain rose on the Donald Trump presidency, the script promised an
administration that would warm to Russia and cool to NATO.

The first few scenes did not consistently unfold that way, though. Despite
the opening months being crammed with allegations of Russian communications,
conspiracies, and cooperations, as recent American actions in Syria have highlighted,
the early steps of the new government were, often, hostile to Russia and encouraging
to NATO.

At the end of January, US tanks and armored vehicles that were part of a 3,500
troop contingent fired salvos into the air in Poland. General
Ben Hodges, the commander of the US Army in Europe, said, "this is
not just a training exercise. It’s to demonstrate a strategic message that you
cannot violate the sovereignty of members of NATO … Moscow will get the message
— I’m confident of it.”

Days later, with her
first words in the Security Council, Trump’s ambassador to the U.N., Nikki
Haley issued a "clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions,"
saying, "I consider it unfortunate that the occasion of my first appearance
is one in which I must condemn the aggressive actions of Russia." She then
added that, "The United States continues to condemn and call for an immediate
end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related
sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula
to Ukraine."

By mid-February, that message had moved up to the White House. Now it was
White House press secretary Sean
Spicer delivering the message on behalf of the president: “President Trump
has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to de-escalate
violence in the Ukraine and return Crimea". The next day, Trump took to
his official organ of policy announcement and Tweeted
that Crimea was "TAKEN by Russia."

In a recent correspondence, Richard Sakwa, professor of Russian and European
politics at Kent University and the author of the upcoming book Russia against
the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order, said that "The renewed
confrontation between Russia and the West is not a replay of the Cold War, although
many of its . . . features . . . have been revived. Competition between the
Atlantic community and Russia has become entrenched as the ‘new normal’. . .
. Profound shifts in global politics are taking place, reshaping the international
system". He stressed that, since, "International relations today are
more perilous than at any time since 1989, . . . we need to understand the dynamics
of relations between Russia and the US since 1989.

And the most crucial current case study for the dynamics of those relations
is the invitation for Montenegro to join NATO. Montenegro is a small Balkan
state that was part of the former Yugoslavia and is, therefore, part of what
Russia considers to be its sphere of influence. While every NATO member needs
to ratify Montenegro’s inclusion in NATO, the people of Montenegro themselves
are split, 39.5% in favor of joining and 39.7% opposing.

Since 1989, Russian-U.S. relations have teetered on competing interpretations
of the deal that agreed to let Germany join NATO. The Russians say NATO promised
to move not one more inch to the east; the Americans say there is no written
proof that such a promise was made. As Montenegro waits at NATO’s threshold,
Trump’s interpretation of that controversy will be the first real test of his
promise to warm relations with Russia.

With the rabidly anti-Russia congress
and the reputedly pro-Russia Secretary of State, Rex
Tillerson, both cheerleading for the admission of Montenegro, Trump’s decision
to admit Montenegro signals the continuity of NATO encroachment on Russia’s
borders, its rejection of Russia’s claim to a sphere of influence and continued
US hostility to Russia where Russia is most concerned.

Trump’s decision to welcome the tiny Balkan state of Montenegro into NATO is
a continuation of a quarter of a century of Western hostility to Russia because
the record strongly suggests that the Russians did receive a promise and that
the West has betrayed them.

In 1999, NATO engulfed Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. The encroachment
toward Russia’s borders continued in 2004 with the absorption of Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. In 2009, the Russian sphere
of influence was further penetrated with the NATO incursion into Albania and
Croatia. And now, in 2017, the acceptance by Trump of Montenegro signals the
new administration’s continuation of hostility toward Russia, despite Trump’s
promise to thaw Russian-American relations.

At a February 9, 1990 meeting at the Kremlin, George H.W. Bush’s Secretary
of State, James Baker, promised Gorbachev that if NATO got Germany and Russia
pulled its troops out of East Germany "there would be no extension of NATO’s
jurisdiction one inch to the east." But, according to Sakwa, this promise
specifically meant only that NATO would not spill over from West Germany into
East Germany. The promise of not "one inch to the east," meant only
that NATO wouldn’t militarize East Germany.

But the logic of the specific assurance implies the larger assurance. Russia
wouldn’t have it as a security concern that East Germany not be home to NATO
forces if there were NATO forces in all the Soviet Republics between East Germany
and the western border of the Soviet Union. The value of the promise not to
militarize East Germany is contingent upon the understanding that NATO won’t
militarize east of East Germany.

So, the question of militarizing east of Germany never had to explicitly come
up: it was implicitly understood. Sakwa says, "The question of NATO enlargement
to the other Soviet bloc countries simply did not enter anyone’s head and was
not discussed." Gorbachev says it didn’t come up at the time because it
was unthinkable at the time: "Merely the notion that NATO might expand
to include the countries in this alliance sounded completely absurd at the time.”

The historical record, however, makes the meaning of the promise clear. The
promise was made on two consecutive days: first by the Americans and then by
the West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. According to West German foreign ministry
documents, on February 10, 1990, the day after James Baker’s promise, West German
Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, told his Soviet counterpart Eduard
Shevardnadze "‘For us . . . one thing is certain: NATO will not expand
to the east.’ And because the conversation revolved mainly around East Germany,
Genscher added explicitly: ‘As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned,
this also applies in general.’"

A few days earlier, on January 31, 1990 Genscher had said in a major speech
that there would not be “an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other
words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.” This public announcement,
again, made the spirit of the promise clear.

Former CIA analyst and chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch Ray McGovern
reports
that the US ambassador to the USSR at the time of the promise, Jack Matlock
– who was present at the talks – told him that “The language used was absolute,
and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that
there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no ‘taking advantage’ by the
US … I don’t see how anybody could view the subsequent expansion of NATO as
anything but ‘taking advantage. . . ."

Matlock is referring to the words of President George H.W. Bush who clearly
stated that the US would not derive any "unilateral advantage"
from the end of the cold war, or, as Genscher phrased it, there would be "no
shift in the balance of power" between the East and the West. As Matlock
said, it is very hard to see how the absorption of the former nations of the
Soviet Union is not an "advantage" or a "shift in the balance
of power."

Mikhail Gorbachev thinks there was a promise made. He says the promise was
made not to expand NATO "as much as a thumb’s width further to the east."
Putin also says the promise was made. In 2007, Putin
said, "And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made
after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today?
No one even remembers them."

Putin then went on to remind his audience of the assurances by pointing out
that the existence of the NATO promise is not just the perception of him and
Gorbachev. It was also the view of the NATO General Secretary at the time: "But
I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote
the speech of NATO General Secretary Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He
said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army
outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’
Where are those guarantees?"

McGovern says that when he asked Viktor Borisovich Kuvaldin, a Gorbachev adviser
from 1989-1991, why there was no written agreement, Kuvaldin replied painfully,
"We trusted you."

Trump’s acceptance of Montenegro’s accession into NATO is the latest failing
of that trust and the most important indication of Trump’s stance on NATO and
American-Russian relations, which need to be understood, as Sakwa said, in the
context of the dynamics of relations between Russia and the US since 1989.

Ted Snider has a graduate degree
in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.

I have no doubt the NATO side made such a promise repeatedly, but did NOT actually include the language in the agreements on purpose. Perhaps they knew they would not be able to get all the parties on their side to buy in, or they realized they were dealing with an inexperienced team of functionaries who could be taken advantage of.

I imagine Gorbachev never thought to ask if it were in the treaty, because he assumed it had to be.

I mean only an foolish negotiator would conclude an agreement of that order based on promises which were NOT actually in the text.

Move ahead some years and suddenly NATO is expanding exactly as they verbally promised not to, and NATO have no recollection of the promise. What a surprise.

If the Russians are angry it’s more due to knowing they were taken advantage of as well as failed by their own negotiating team. Who should have known better (I’d love to know of their experience then and collective fate).

eric

I believe Russia had a agreement with Hitler to on how to divide Poland . Did the NAZIs divide Poland according to the Russian German agreement ? Why would Russia expect now the same people would be interested in keeping a agreement . Treaties are worthless when your dealing with people like the NAZIs or NATO . Did NATO honor resolution 1244 that ended the war in Kosovo ? Don’t expect NATO ton keep any agree4ment

bob balkas

So, even Serbia will not have–unless it joins Nato– access to the Adriatic that stretches from Italo-Slovene border to the south-eastern end of Albania. And Serbia has recently said that it is willing to join EU, but not Nato.
Btw, Bosnia has an access to the Adriatic, but is very small an area. And it’s surrounded by Croatian territorial waters.

eric

The destruction of Yugoslavia was a big hurt on all the Slavic people of Yugoslavia . As a small little areas of Roman Catholics separated from Bosnian Muslims and the majority Orthodox Christians that were kicked out of over half their country .. You allowed outside forces to come in and wreck your country . Now non of you have any power in the EU . you are just little pawns that deserve to be kicked around and surely will bev

267July

Other than tourism and handouts from the EU, exactly what is the economy of the Balkans?

NATO seems to gobble up these little former Yugoslav areas just as fast as the NAZI’s ever did . This is exactly why both Russia and China were in favor of keeping Yugoslavia a whole independent non aligned country . Not facing off against them . Neither Russia or China can see any difference in what NATO is doing or what the NAZI’s tried to do to them . They believe NATO or NAZI is the same thing .

wars r u.s.

“You cannot violate the sovereignty of members of NATO”. Now if you want to violate non members sovereignty, feel free.

ppsayl

America had better learn (and fast) that you can’t afford to squander what you’re not prepared to pay.

Caesar_Saladin

A shining example of why no one- even its own citizens- should trust the government of the United States.